09.10.05
Input Needed
I have recently been having an ongoing discussion with my brother, Chris, over evolution vs. creation (catastrophic vs. uniformitarian development of the earth and man). Recently when studying for one of my classes I reviewed the Cell Doctrine Theroy that consists of the following three principles:
1.) All living things are composed of cells and cell products.
2.) A single cell is the smallest unit that exhibits all the characteristics of life.
3.) All cells come from pre-existing cells.
This last point is quite interesting as it supports Chris’ argument of a fist cause that is missing in evolutionary science. I am going to do some research on the explaination of how this final point, accepted as a scientific law, fits into another widely accepted scientific law, that is, evolution.
In the mean time I would appreciate any input from anyone who has done extensive research on this topic. I am a very scietific minded person who wants to eventually go into medicine. I try to rely on emperical evidence whenever possible and am now, once again, going to be searching for it.
Abs Said:
September 10, 2005 at 3:36 pm
I would recommend reading “case for a creator” by Lee Strobel. This book brings out every aspect that is concerned with evolution/creation.
Abs Said:
September 10, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Is it possible to provide full text syndication as opposed to just the summary…
thanks…
Aaron Shafovaloff Said:
September 10, 2005 at 8:54 pm
I’m no biologist but I think the following might be relevant and helpful. Proponents of “irreducible complexity” (which precludes certain types of evolution), from what little I have read, appeal to the impossibility of the evolution of flagella because of its “extremely sophisticated cellular structure that requires the interaction of many different and finely-tuned systems to function correctly”. Check out “Darwin’s Black Box”, by Michael J. Behe.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box
PS Despite the policy of “neutrality”, much of Wikipedia’s content is conspicuously biased toward macroevolution.
Typing all that made me feel smart. But uh… like I said… this is totally not my bowl of chili. I do look up at the sky and hear the heavens screaming “ETERNAL POWER AND DIVINE NATURE.”
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron
Aaron Shafovaloff Said:
September 10, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Some other perhaps relevant thoughts:
- Prove that the universe wasn’t created five minutes ago, exactly as it was five minutes ago. Seems silly but this caused an epiphany for me. God didn’t have to create things undeveloped and immature. From what I know, He created a fully-functioning, mature, developed universe in six days. In other words, on the seventh day the trees looked a lot older than one day.
- I WANNA SEE MY FOSSIL RECORD, DANGIT. Scientists say A evolved into M, and then M to Z, but often have no fossil record of B to L, or N to Y. They assume macroevolution from observable microevolution and the fossil record of A, M, and Z, but given what looks like irreducible complexity and lack of much-needed fossil record, it’s *at least* reasonable to surmise an intelligent designer.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i4/fossils.asp?vPrint=1
This paragraph used to be on Wikipedia’s evolution article:
“The theory of evolution tells us that differential reproduction rates result in very small but persistent changes in the phenotype of a population. Given enough time an isolated population will become an entirely new species. All species, as described by this model, are in a state of transition. However, it is extremely difficult to find examples of gradual change in the fossil record… The lack of fossil evidence introduces complexity and fascination.”
- I remember being indoctrinated with the inductive scientific method, which required constants and empirical evidence and experiments and tested patterns. But it seems that proponents of macroevolution exit the sphere of the inductive scientific method and makes some pretty heavy philosophical assumptions and steep inferences from VERY little empirical evidence. Evolution is not a normal field of science
- I read a study not long ago about scientists finding some cells in the brain that somewhat resemble cells that could evolve into the rods and cones in our eyes. Seriously, all they found was some cells that bore resemblance. The conclusion they made? WE’VE SOLVE THE GREAT MYSTERY OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE EYE!!! Give me a break. See the incredibly fast and far and unwarranted inferences made here:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=15595
Again, all that is from the keyboard of a non-biologist, non-chemist laymen.
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron
Aaron Shafovaloff Said:
September 10, 2005 at 9:21 pm
One of the most crazy paragraphs from that last article:
“When I saw this vertebrate-type molecule active in the cells of the Playtnereis brain - it was clear that these cells and the vertebrate rods and cones shared a molecular fingerprint. This was concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin. We had finally solved one of the big mysteries in human eye evolution.”
I hope the silliness is self-evident.
Chris Said:
September 11, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Remember the Kalam Cosmological Argument (that I have been giving you):
Everything has a beginning.
The universe had a beginning.
There had to be a source of the universe.
The only possible creator is one that is self-existent, immutable, and omnipotent.
Therefore, God exists.
Todd Leroy Said:
September 12, 2005 at 11:53 am
In the introduction of the last science textbook I bought in college there was a history of some of the earliest scientific experiments that proved there is no such thing as spontaneous generation immediately followed by a history of evolutionary theory. Life comes from life was the resounding conclusion of the first part. Life comes from dead things was the hypothesis of the second. We would be so much more progressive if we simply embraced that creation was designed.
Recommend: Find a list of the physical features and organs that were considered vestigial in the early days of evolutionary theory and compare it with a list of ‘vestigial’ features today.
Your Brother Said:
October 3, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Post More!!